User talk:Neskaya/Archive 2014

Why WT:ACCEL is broken
I'm not sure, but it may have something to do with the announcement that CodeCat and Liliana got into their little edit war over: Liliana did some major work with it. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, whomever broke it should be damn well responsible for fixing it. Of course, I also have no doubt that at this point in time each of them will blame the other, mind you. I would like to be able to finish creating Bulgarian noun forms, and some other projects I had going with the accelerated script, you know? And I certainly don't have the technical know-how to do it myself… of course. I do have the technical know-how to go back and undo things other people did to it and find the last not-broken version, if it does come down to that. I wish conrad were here, and thanks for the heads up. --Neskaya sprecan? 10:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was the announcement itself they were fighting over. I think Liliana made all the changes, and she's not in any position to fix anything... since she's blocked. Maybe you need to explain the problem over at the Grease Pit, so someone else can fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to said announcement by any chance (I've been so out of touch with things, so trying to figure out what's what is… confusing sometimes at best)? I'll go post to the Grease Pit (as much as I really do hate the discussion boards) in the morning, provided I can't get Liliana to tell me what she did to break it first. That, and although it is in big large letters on my to-do list, you might have noticed that except for short bursts, I'm not very active here. If I have to wait a week before she fixes it, that's not really too much skin off my nose. I do have work this week, after all…
 * Thanks.--Neskaya sprecan? 10:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking at the thread, I see I had it backwards- CodeCat did all the changes and Liliana had nothing to do with it. Liliana's role was just objecting to CodeCat posting the announcement under January instead of December, and moving it to December. Sorry for the confusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good, then CodeCat can fix it. I think I'm going to object to the changes to a fairly widely used tool without anyone bothering to ask or test in the first place since they so clearly broke it. Some consideration from CodeCat before breaking things would be awful nice and this certainly isn't the first time something like this has happened. --Neskaya sprecan? 11:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, vaguely, how CodeCat broke it. They removed a bunch of old code that they thought was no longer useful, including apparently deaccelerating some templates such as the one that I occasionally work on and have been working on for the spam of years. They definitely showed no forethought to the actions. It's a bit late here… but I'm ticked off significantly. (I did note that they BRONE IT on the Grease Pit with some expressions of my displeasure). I'll try to remain civil to them though. :) --Neskaya sprecan? 11:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Liliana-60
I have re-blocked Liliana-60, because I think her actions clearly merited the block, and I'm guessing/hoping that you simply didn't see all of them. I described them in my block message, so you can judge whether that's the case. If it's not, then please let me know. I'm not quite sure what the next steps are in that case, but I don't mean to push my view unilaterally if you sincerely disagree with it.

(BTW: I don't feel strongly that one month, specifically, is the appropriate block duration, but Liliana's harassment has been persistent enough that it seems reasonable to me.)

And on a lighter note — happy 2014! I hope to see you around more this year. :-)

—Ruakh TALK 04:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Given the timing, I suspect alcohol was involved, but after her role in the "No more Mr. Bad Guy" fiasco, she doesn't deserve a second chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A month? Who was last blocked on en.WT for a month? I call bullshit. - Amgine/t&middot;e 06:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question: Two established editors were blocked for a month other than by Chuck Entz in the past 4 months. All other 1 month blocks were to anonymous IPs or to users whose creation was less than 48 hours (Vandalism only accounts):
 * EXCEPTION #1: User:Pass a Method was blocked by User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV on Sept. 2, the user's 5th block for NPOV issues.
 * blocked User:PeteBB on Nov 10 for, apparently, editing a template by mistake (user has never edited since.)
 * blocked User:Writer1962 on Oct. 23, 3rd offense vandalism.
 * blocked User:Sarasara12345 on Sept 17 (New user made the same addition to Elton 6 times, reverted 6 times by SemperBlotto, which was never addressed either in the article or on the user's talk page. First edits, first block, user has not edited since.)
 * blocked User:Cman1 on Sept. 01 for content removal. (Although a repeat offence, the user had not previously been blocked or warned.)


 * Other noobs - most created the same day as blocked - who probably should not have been blocked. (I only sampled lightly; it is likely there were others not found.)
 * blocked User:TheKaraokeKid on Sept. 12 (User was not established, but no record of account creation date. Probably the same day as blocked.)
 * blocked User:Tonyklimczak for the user's first, single, edit on Sept. 04, which incorrectly attempted to pluralize chip.
 * blocked on Sept 03 after User:Talentunleashed made xyr only 3 edits to a single article, where they were adding non-vandalism content (but noobishly erased a large portion of the article.)

Re: "Worse was who gave the initial block": I agree. Re: "The appearance is much worse than I expect the reality was: it looks like CodeCat meatpuppeted Ruakh to reinstate the block": Indeed, that is not the reality. I initially went to block Liliana-60 when I saw her edit-summary, and saw that I had already been beaten to it (though I was not thrilled to see by whom). Later, I saw more of her actions, and then I saw that she had been unblocked (because I had her userpage on my watchlist, so blocks and unblocks show up there), at which point I re-blocked and posted here. Re: "there is no evidence there was any review": I don't think enwikt has anything like "reviews" of blocks. Do you think we need such a thing? —Ruakh TALK 21:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My impression is anonymous IPs are being blocked far too long, too little investigation is being done before blocking for extended periods, not enough consideration for new contributors, and there is no justification for a one-month block of a regular contributor with an extensive history by the administrator supposedly 'wronged'. Furthermore, a *single* administrator is responsible for far too many of the 1 month blocks; this suggest that administrator is out of step with the rest of the community. (There were at least two other admins who administered 1 month blocks in the past year to contributors with history - CodeCat and Ivan - but I didn't want to wade through so much data.) - Amgine/t&middot;e 08:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that Ruakh's statement that I agreed with was about there being a block, not about the length of the block. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can accept that; what I saw of it was over the line. The length, however, was unacceptable. Worse was who gave the initial block - I cannot respect an admin who blocks someone with whom they are in dispute over the dispute. I would have respected a review of the block with reinstatement, but there is no evidence there was any review. The appearance is much worse than I expect the reality was: it looks like CodeCat meatpuppeted Ruakh to reinstate the block, or that it "was only a user so it doesn't matter." - Amgine/t&middot;e 20:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "The length, however, was unacceptable": All right; I've reduced it to one week (plus time so far).
 * &lt;nods&gt; Yes, the above is pretty much what I expected.
 * As regards reviews, yes, I would like to see reviews of unusual/complicated/weird blocks and unblocks. I would have liked to see an explication from Neskaya regarding why xe unblocked, as it was reversing the actions of another admin. I would have like to see the same for the re-block. This has happened after the fact', which is good. Better had it occurred beforehand, but it has happened now so this incident - for me - is closed. - Amgine/t&middot;e 21:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given her actions, and the lengthy discussion I had with her on IRC regarding them as well, I have entirely no disagreement with the 1 week block. It gives her some time to cool off, think about things, and come back better dedicated to productive editing -- and no drama. And perhaps I was in the wrong for unblocking rather than simply reducing the block (my initial actions were seeing the block, and letting my opinion (of being less than thrilled for CC having blocked a user they're in conflict with) rule my reaction in the first place).
 * As far as review process, I'd also prefer we not become Wikipedia. I like what little process we have, and the fact that we managed to come to an amicable solution to the matter via a less formal discussion such as this is good, in my view. We have an IRC channel, we also have the emailuser tool -- and these are both things which I think should be within the recourses to start with. I don't think that the review process should become more codified than simply one admin/sysop talking to another and such. We don't need that sort of stuff. (At least, we didn't the last time I was around, and I sincerely hope that we still don't. Too much of that sort of process, and large discussion pages, those don't do anyone any good.) In any case.
 * The matter of things such as 1 month bans being too long and when those are appropriate is, I suspect, a different discussion altogether, and one that I will take part in only peripherally, as things like my talk page are about the biggest I'm good with these days without getting hopelessly lost or inable to concentrate. --Neskaya sprecan? 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair -- I will note that I need to finish reading through that entire fiasco. I'll be doing so in the morning, and then revisiting this matter. (At the moment, what it looks like Liliana is guilty of in the SB fiasco was haranguing CodeCat again, then being misunderstood because text is a wholly inadequate medium for sarcasm, and that time, frankly, CodeCat well and wholly deserved it, but that's another matter entirely.) And I think that my biggest disagreement here is on the fact that we've blocked someone who is otherwise and to my knowledge a productive editor, was a productive administrator during her time, for a month. A month's time is inappropriate for damn near any actions, although yes. I still need to wholly review them, but wouldn't a week or so be more reasonable and then let everyone get on with their lives? (Including those of us who've been dragged into this from the outside.)
 * Additionally, although Liliana might have been persistent, CodeCat has been persistent as well, and his tone and such looks damn near like harassment and haranguing. As well as… reactionary, if that is in fact the correct word. Mountains out of what certainly were not mountains to begin with. Moreover he regularly seems to take a berating tone in discussions I've witnessed, and his participation is certainly one of the things that puts me off of venues like the Beer Parlour these days.
 * At the very least we should be taking a look at the policy of these month-long blocks in cases when they're certainly not warranted, definitely. --Neskaya sprecan? 09:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CodeCat deserved being criticized for her actions, not having irrelevant issues of her gender and identity introduced. That changed the tenor of the discussion from anger to character assassination. While a month might not be warranted, a block definitely was. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The block log of Liliana-60 shows the block given by Ruakh had this edit summary: 'Intimidating behavior/harassment: Posting a user's location; threatening to "pay her a surprise visit"; and addressing her with an offensive slur'. Of this, posting a user's location and threatening them to "pay her a surprise visit" seems a serious offense, worth a one month's block or more. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That particular statement seems to be additionally very easily out of context. Posting a location is serious, yes. But when that location is a huge municipality containing a large number of people? The user has been talked to, warned NOT to do it again, and given an additional chance to explain her actions. A one month block off the bat is still inappropriate. As for the rest, I'm writing a more significant response to Ruakh above, after which point I'm going to go with Amgine and consider this particular matter closed. --Neskaya sprecan? 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)